I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

[Lysistrata]

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

lol
Ok, How about people have the decency not to try and force their views on other people through business? Why force someone to To do something they obviously object to? But then again you are a control freak... It’s a control freak thing I do not understand

"Decency" has nothing to do with it. Nobody tried to force any view on anyone. He has/had a business license. He had quite an elaborate website. Even on it, he did not indicate that the service that he was offering was restricted to certain members of the public. It was a general invitation to patronize his business. He did not do anything at all to warn the public of his religious proclivities. All that happened was that his violation of anti-discrimination laws was reported through the established procedure.

The couple did nothing wrong, and they are blameless in this matter. I notice that the anti-LGBT types always try to flip the blame onto LGBTs, which is BS. This guy failed in his responsibilities.

lol
It is ridiculous to force someone to do business they want nothing to do with

PA laws are in place for a good reason. If a person does not want to do business, then they don't need to establish one.

You obviously are a control freak. Nobody needs to "keep their shit to themselves" and nobody is expecting "other people to the adjust or adapt to it" except in the normal course of business. I don't even know how anyone would "keep their shit to themselves," anyway. Somehow, I do not think that you keep your shit to yourself. I think that you walk around freely in society. Yet you are issuing demands of others.

Get over the notion that you own the country or the world. You don't. You always have the option of leaving.

 

[Leo123]

PA laws are in place for a good reason. If a person does not want to do business, then they don't need to establish one.

You obviously are a control freak. Nobody needs to "keep their shit to themselves" and nobody is expecting "other people to the adjust or adapt to it" except in the normal course of business. I don't even know how anyone would "keep their shit to themselves," anyway. Somehow, I do not think that you keep your shit to yourself. I think that you walk around freely in society. Yet you are issuing demands of others.

Get over the notion that you own the country or the world. You don't. You always have the option of leaving.

We The People 'own' our country the U.S. We The People currently control the world. Lucky you.

 

[Lysistrata]

PA laws are in place for a good reason. If a person does not want to do business, then they don't need to establish one.

You obviously are a control freak. Nobody needs to "keep their shit to themselves" and nobody is expecting "other people to the adjust or adapt to it" except in the normal course of business. I don't even know how anyone would "keep their shit to themselves," anyway. Somehow, I do not think that you keep your shit to yourself. I think that you walk around freely in society. Yet you are issuing demands of others.

Get over the notion that you own the country or the world. You don't. You always have the option of leaving.

We The People 'own' our country the U.S. We The People currently control the world. Lucky you.

But we are all "We The People" who "own" our country. Some of "We The People" want control other members of "We The People." Apparently, Rustic is one of them. You might be, as well.

 

[Olde Europe]

Revisiting your comment....you know the discussion is all about PA laws, right? So to be part of this discussion and say you give a shit about the laws.....really shows you aren't keeping up with the topic you jumped in on.

Not really.

Originally, this thread was about whether or not being gay / trans is a choice - and the fake study used to create a ruckus about the matter.

I have to admit I also don't care that much about PA laws. I know, in real life they offer important protections, but for the discussion we're having, the central point is that the CRCs in effect tell Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks they should meekly have gone to the back of the bus. To me it seems, it's about respect - or the lack thereof - and yet another failure to learn from history. Were CRCs (and their affiliates) capable of that kind of respect, PA laws would be redundant.

 

[SweetSue92]

Revisiting your comment....you know the discussion is all about PA laws, right? So to be part of this discussion and say you give a shit about the laws.....really shows you aren't keeping up with the topic you jumped in on.

Not really.

Originally, this thread was about whether or not being gay / trans is a choice - and the fake study used to create a ruckus about the matter.

I have to admit I also don't care that much about PA laws. I know, in real life they offer important protections, but for the discussion we're having, the central point is that the CRCs in effect tell Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks they should meekly have gone to the back of the bus. To me it seems, it's about respect - or the lack thereof - and yet another failure to learn from history. Were CRCs (and their affiliates) capable of that kind of respect, PA laws would be redundant.

Great deal of disrespect on the part of the Gay Mafia purposefully seeking out shops that are reluctant to serve their WEDDINGS. No one is refusing to serve them because they are gay. These mafia types are disrespectful of people's deeply held religious convictions.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally ******* fair.

The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.

And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.

So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?

Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.

The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.

Churches are not businesses nor do they have business licenses. In fact, they get special rights...even tax exemptions.

Where does the 1st amendment say only Churches have the right to free exercise, and not individuals?

Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or limited to when you are sitting in a house of worship.

So the entire adult population of the U.S. has an individual right to the free exercise of religion? This is a Pandora's Box that you don't want to open.

Which isn't absolute. If you actually read my posts, you know I believe in PA laws when applied to actual PA's. and all of these businesses are willing to provide point of sale services to anyone. What they ask for is to not have to provide contracted services that go against their moral code.

And yes, it is an individual right. How is it a collective right?

 

[martybegan]

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.

So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?

Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.

The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.

Churches are not businesses nor do they have business licenses. In fact, they get special rights...even tax exemptions.

Where does the 1st amendment say only Churches have the right to free exercise, and not individuals?

Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or limited to when you are sitting in a house of worship.

So the entire adult population of the U.S. has an individual right to the free exercise of religion? This is a Pandora's Box that you don't want to open.

As I said before....wait for the day when some christian business owner "claims" they don't have to follow safety or health laws for religious reasons.

Actually some places are trying to ban halal slaughter via the health codes, or male circumcision, which violates free exercise, so we are already there.

 

[martybegan]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

I agree. It is 100% personal choice, not an inheritance. Most other folly also is not inherited but is the personal choice of the person engaging in it.

If it's 100% a choice, when did you choose your sexual orientation? What age were you? What do you recall leading to that choice?

The species defaults to heterosexuality, because if it didn't there wouldn't be a species anymore.

Oh? Are gay people sterile ??

They have a desire to mate with people of the same sex, which cannot produce offspring.

That is a negative trait when it comes to a species that procreates via sexual reproduction.

 

[martybegan]

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment. It still asks the whole "nature vs nurture" question.

A better study would be split identical twins, but considering how few instances of that occur, you don't have enough of a sample size to reach any conclusions.

Actually, in the studies, the 40% still applies for those separated at birth.

Doesn't address the sample size, and 40% to me doesn't seem like preponderance of the evidence.

Of course it could also be due to the fact that there is not always one easy answer to questions like this, or no one reason for a given behavior.

40% if identical dna compared to about 5% for all others? Nothing to see here, folks.

If it were entirely DNA it would be 100%.

Not so. We are actually talking about epigenetics -genetic markers which can result in variation even in identical twins

Study Finds Epigenetics, Not Genetics, Underlies Homosexuality

Nitpicking.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Actually, in the studies, the 40% still applies for those separated at birth.

Doesn't address the sample size, and 40% to me doesn't seem like preponderance of the evidence.

Of course it could also be due to the fact that there is not always one easy answer to questions like this, or no one reason for a given behavior.

40% if identical dna compared to about 5% for all others? Nothing to see here, folks.

If it were entirely DNA it would be 100%.

Not so. We are actually talking about epigenetics -genetic markers which can result in variation even in identical twins

Study Finds Epigenetics, Not Genetics, Underlies Homosexuality

Nitpicking.

Really? That is the most intelligent response that you can come up with?

 

[martybegan]

Doesn't address the sample size, and 40% to me doesn't seem like preponderance of the evidence.

Of course it could also be due to the fact that there is not always one easy answer to questions like this, or no one reason for a given behavior.

40% if identical dna compared to about 5% for all others? Nothing to see here, folks.

If it were entirely DNA it would be 100%.

Not so. We are actually talking about epigenetics -genetic markers which can result in variation even in identical twins

Study Finds Epigenetics, Not Genetics, Underlies Homosexuality

Nitpicking.

Really? That is the most intelligent response that you can come up with?

It covers my view on the concept completely.

 

[Polishprince]

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

lol
Ok, How about people have the decency not to try and force their views on other people through business? Why force someone to To do something they obviously object to? But then again you are a control freak... It’s a control freak thing I do not understand

"Decency" has nothing to do with it. Nobody tried to force any view on anyone. He has/had a business license. He had quite an elaborate website. Even on it, he did not indicate that the service that he was offering was restricted to certain members of the public. It was a general invitation to patronize his business. He did not do anything at all to warn the public of his religious proclivities. All that happened was that his violation of anti-discrimination laws was reported through the established procedure.

The couple did nothing wrong, and they are blameless in this matter. I notice that the anti-LGBT types always try to flip the blame onto LGBTs, which is BS. This guy failed in his responsibilities.

lol
It is ridiculous to force someone to do business they want nothing to do with

PA laws are in place for a good reason. If a person does not want to do business, then they don't need to establish one.

You obviously are a control freak. Nobody needs to "keep their shit to themselves" and nobody is expecting "other people to the adjust or adapt to it" except in the normal course of business. I don't even know how anyone would "keep their shit to themselves," anyway. Somehow, I do not think that you keep your shit to yourself. I think that you walk around freely in society. Yet you are issuing demands of others.

Get over the notion that you own the country or the world. You don't. You always have the option of leaving.

In this situation, the person isn't being denied service because of who they are, but because of their political ideology. They believe in the political idea of Gay Marriage, and the vendor disagrees with that.

Seems very similar to the situation in the Far Left, Deep Blue seat of the Confederacy, Virginia, when Sarah Sanders was denied service at the Red Hen because of her conservatism.

 

[Rustic]

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

lol
Ok, How about people have the decency not to try and force their views on other people through business? Why force someone to To do something they obviously object to? But then again you are a control freak... It’s a control freak thing I do not understand

"Decency" has nothing to do with it. Nobody tried to force any view on anyone. He has/had a business license. He had quite an elaborate website. Even on it, he did not indicate that the service that he was offering was restricted to certain members of the public. It was a general invitation to patronize his business. He did not do anything at all to warn the public of his religious proclivities. All that happened was that his violation of anti-discrimination laws was reported through the established procedure.

The couple did nothing wrong, and they are blameless in this matter. I notice that the anti-LGBT types always try to flip the blame onto LGBTs, which is BS. This guy failed in his responsibilities.

lol
It is ridiculous to force someone to do business they want nothing to do with

PA laws are in place for a good reason. If a person does not want to do business, then they don't need to establish one.

You obviously are a control freak. Nobody needs to "keep their shit to themselves" and nobody is expecting "other people to the adjust or adapt to it" except in the normal course of business. I don't even know how anyone would "keep their shit to themselves," anyway. Somehow, I do not think that you keep your shit to yourself. I think that you walk around freely in society. Yet you are issuing demands of others.

Get over the notion that you own the country or the world. You don't. You always have the option of leaving.

Lol
It’s called minding your own business… Dumbass

 

[task0778]

From the report in question:

"While some people are under the impression that sexual orientation is an innate, fixed, and biological trait of human beings — that, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, we are “born that way” — there is insufficient scientific evidence to support that claim. In fact, the concept of sexual orientation itself is highly ambiguous; it can refer to a set of behaviors, to feelings of attraction, or to a sense of identity. Epidemiological studies show a rather modest association between genetic factors and sexual attractions or behaviors, but do not provide significant evidence pointing to particular genes. There is also evidence for other hypothesized biological causes of homosexual behaviors, attractions, or identity — such as the influence of hormones on prenatal development — but that evidence, too, is limited. Studies of the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals have found some differences, but have not demonstrated that these differences are inborn rather than the result of environmental factors that influenced both psychological and neurobiological traits. One environmental factor that appears to be correlated with non-heterosexuality is childhood sexual abuse victimization, which may also contribute to the higher rates of poor mental health outcomes among non-heterosexual subpopulations, compared to the general population. Overall, the evidence suggests some measure of fluidity in patterns of sexual attraction and behavior — contrary to the “born that way” notion that oversimplifies the vast complexity of human sexuality."


"Insufficient evidence" or "limited evidence" is not the same as "no evidence". IOW, the report doesn't say that sexual orientation is not innate, but rather that they couldn't prove that it was. Or wasn't, at least they didn't come out and say so. Nor could they prove that it couldn't be innate either. The report says that "Studies of the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals have found some differences, but have not demonstrated that these differences are inborn rather than the result of environmental factors that influenced both psychological and neurobiological traits", which means it could be inborn or due to environmental factors or both.

The bottom line for me: I don't care which it is, choice or no choice, it's nobody else's business. Live and let live.

 

[bodecea]

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

lol
Ok, How about people have the decency not to try and force their views on other people through business? Why force someone to To do something they obviously object to? But then again you are a control freak... It’s a control freak thing I do not understand

"Decency" has nothing to do with it. Nobody tried to force any view on anyone. He has/had a business license. He had quite an elaborate website. Even on it, he did not indicate that the service that he was offering was restricted to certain members of the public. It was a general invitation to patronize his business. He did not do anything at all to warn the public of his religious proclivities. All that happened was that his violation of anti-discrimination laws was reported through the established procedure.

The couple did nothing wrong, and they are blameless in this matter. I notice that the anti-LGBT types always try to flip the blame onto LGBTs, which is BS. This guy failed in his responsibilities.

lol
It is ridiculous to force someone to do business they want nothing to do with

Then work to repeal the PA laws in your state. Start petitions. Call your state rep. Start an anti-PA law PAC. Run for office yourself on an anti-PA platform.

 

[bodecea]

Revisiting your comment....you know the discussion is all about PA laws, right? So to be part of this discussion and say you give a shit about the laws.....really shows you aren't keeping up with the topic you jumped in on.

Not really.

Originally, this thread was about whether or not being gay / trans is a choice - and the fake study used to create a ruckus about the matter.

I have to admit I also don't care that much about PA laws. I know, in real life they offer important protections, but for the discussion we're having, the central point is that the CRCs in effect tell Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks they should meekly have gone to the back of the bus. To me it seems, it's about respect - or the lack thereof - and yet another failure to learn from history. Were CRCs (and their affiliates) capable of that kind of respect, PA laws would be redundant.

Great deal of disrespect on the part of the Gay Mafia purposefully seeking out shops that are reluctant to serve their WEDDINGS. No one is refusing to serve them because they are gay. These mafia types are disrespectful of people's deeply held religious convictions.

"Deeply held"... Are these "deeply held" beliefs keeping them from baking wedding cakes for the previously divorced? Are these "deeply held" beliefs keeping them from baking cakes for those who opt for just a civil marriage with no religious ceremony? Are these "deeply held" beliefs keeping them from baking cakes for those who lived in sin before having a wedding?

 

[bodecea]

So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?

Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.

The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.

Churches are not businesses nor do they have business licenses. In fact, they get special rights...even tax exemptions.

Where does the 1st amendment say only Churches have the right to free exercise, and not individuals?

Free exercise isn't limited to the clergy or limited to when you are sitting in a house of worship.

So the entire adult population of the U.S. has an individual right to the free exercise of religion? This is a Pandora's Box that you don't want to open.

As I said before....wait for the day when some christian business owner "claims" they don't have to follow safety or health laws for religious reasons.

Actually some places are trying to ban halal slaughter via the health codes, or male circumcision, which violates free exercise, so we are already there.

What are those some places?

 

[Lysistrata]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

I agree. It is 100% personal choice, not an inheritance. Most other folly also is not inherited but is the personal choice of the person engaging in it.

If it's 100% a choice, when did you choose your sexual orientation? What age were you? What do you recall leading to that choice?

The species defaults to heterosexuality, because if it didn't there wouldn't be a species anymore.

Oh? Are gay people sterile ??

They have a desire to mate with people of the same sex, which cannot produce offspring.

That is a negative trait when it comes to a species that procreates via sexual reproduction.

Since when is there a requirement that everyone reproduce themselves and more? You do realize that the earth already is overpopulated, don't you? Heterosexuals seem to remain at it. We can't even figure out how to feed and house everyone or properly get rid of our own garbage. We are experiencing the mass migration that was predicted as early as the 1960s, if not before. Yet you right-wing types want to feed more and more of the impoverished and unwanted into the mix and your motivation is really unclear.

I'll say it again: if you introduce the idea of unbridled free exercise of religion into a country with a diverse population of over 300 million people, all that results will be chaos. We need common social rules to be followed by everyone. This "just because I wanna" stuff doesn't work.

 

[bodecea]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

I agree. It is 100% personal choice, not an inheritance. Most other folly also is not inherited but is the personal choice of the person engaging in it.

If it's 100% a choice, when did you choose your sexual orientation? What age were you? What do you recall leading to that choice?

The species defaults to heterosexuality, because if it didn't there wouldn't be a species anymore.

Oh? Are gay people sterile ??

They have a desire to mate with people of the same sex, which cannot produce offspring.

That is a negative trait when it comes to a species that procreates via sexual reproduction.

Odd....we have an offspring. And we know many other gay couples that have offspring.

But here's something interesting: marriage doesn't require procreation and procreation doesn't require marriage.

 

[bodecea]

I agree. It is 100% personal choice, not an inheritance. Most other folly also is not inherited but is the personal choice of the person engaging in it.

If it's 100% a choice, when did you choose your sexual orientation? What age were you? What do you recall leading to that choice?

The species defaults to heterosexuality, because if it didn't there wouldn't be a species anymore.

Oh? Are gay people sterile ??

They have a desire to mate with people of the same sex, which cannot produce offspring.

That is a negative trait when it comes to a species that procreates via sexual reproduction.

Since when is there a requirement that everyone reproduce themselves and more? You do realize that the earth already is overpopulated, don't you? Heterosexuals seem to remain at it. We can't even figure out how to feed and house everyone or properly get rid of our own garbage. We are experiencing the mass migration that was predicted as early as the 1960s, if not before. Yet you right-wing types want to feed more and more of the impoverished and unwanted into the mix and your motivation is really unclear.

I'll say it again: if you introduce the idea of unbridled free exercise of religion into a country with a diverse population of over 300 million people, all that results will be chaos. We need common social rules to be followed by everyone. This "just because I wanna" stuff doesn't work.

Many hetero couples are opting out of having children....particularly in industrialized first world countries. It's NOT a requirement for getting married. It's not like in the old days when marriage was there to make women baby factories and to ensure that the children (male) had established inheritance rights.